FWIW: agreed with others, it looks a pretty pointless sugar. It doesn't seem to bring anything new or "that needed" to the language.
-1 here On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:04 PM, liorean <lior...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do we really need it? > Your «foo(1, ?, 2);» is equivalent to «a=>foo(1,a,2)». > Your «foo(?, 1, ???);» is equivalent to «(a,...b)=>foo(a,1,...b)». > Your «foo(1, ???, 2);» is equivalent to «(...a)=>foo(...[1,...a,2])». > > Also, the ? token is already taken by the ternary conditional > operator. Do we really want to overload it here for a nullary > operator/special form, when we have as low overhead syntax as we > already do in fat arrows for doing the exact same thing? > -- > David "liorean" Andersson > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss@mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
